Standing Committee A

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

Clause 2

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
'(bb) the time of day it was committed.'.—[Mr. Chope.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'. 
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'. 
No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'. 
No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert— 
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'. 
No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert— 
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender,'. 
No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the time of day it was committed,'. 
No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'. 
No. 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'. 
No. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'. 
No. 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert— 
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'. 
No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender.'.

David Jamieson: May I start, Mr. Pike, by saying how delighted I am that you are in the Chair and that you will preside over our proceedings in the firm but fair way you always chair our proceedings? In your absence this morning, Mr. Hughes was extremely good on his first outing and I shall convey that information to him at the earliest opportunity.
You will be surprised to hear, Mr. Pike, that during our debate this morning on clause 1 and grants to local authorities, there was a considerable discussion about speed safety cameras. There was also a discussion about the handbook of rules and guidance on safety cameras. This Government always keep their promises and this Minister always ensures that promises are  kept. The document is now available for those who want a copy for some light bedtime reading or who like reading such things. It has been available for some time in the Library, but we have brought some copies Upstairs.

David Wilshire: As I was the one who suggested that that might happen, it would be unfair if I did not thank the Minister, which gives me the opportunity to ask him about the Government's promise at the last election not to increase taxes.

Peter Pike: Order. The Minister should not be tempted to go astray.

David Jamieson: Mr. Pike, I will not be drawn on that, lest we do further damage to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and his party.
Just before the Committee adjourned this morning, when I was rudely interrupted, I was saying that clause 2 amends section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to enable the Secretary of State by order to prescribe graduated penalties. The amount may vary, depending on the circumstances of the offence, which include, in particular, the nature of the offence, its severity, where it took place and whether the offender had committed other prescribed offences during a prescribed period. However, that is not an exclusive list of circumstances. 
The measure provides wide scope to take account of key factors such as whether the offence was near a school. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to collisions, which are covered by new subsection (2)(2)(b). Meteorological conditions and the presence of a particular number of vulnerable road users are harder to codify; in the latter case, I would be disinclined to try to formulate too complex a structure of penalties that took account of factors such as how many pedestrians were on the pavement or the road at a particular time. 
Clause 3 amends section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so as to enable the Secretary of State by order to prescribe appropriate levels of penalty points in the case of a fixed penalty. The number of points may vary, depending on the circumstances of the offence. Amendments Nos. 16 to 21, which we will discuss under clause 2 although they apply to clause 3, would have an effect similar to amendments Nos. 6 to 11, which apply to clause 2. They are subject to the same difficulties and the Government cannot accept them. 
I had not covered a couple of points, one of which was raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) who, sadly, is not in his place. He asked about amendment No. 21 and any mitigating circumstances. It would be absurd if someone could start arguing about mitigating circumstances at the side of the road and a police officer had to take those circumstances into consideration. The police officer makes a judgment, but he cannot then hold a court at the side of the road. If someone wants to contest a judgment, they can go before the courts to seek redress.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, which gives me a better understanding of the situation, but it does not put my mind at rest about the circumstances that I raised with him. A court might say, ''We accept the mitigation. It is justified and we therefore reduce the fine to zero'', indicating that it had every sympathy; yet the law does not allow it to say, ''We will not apply points.'' The person would then be disqualified, although the court felt that they should not be penalised. Is the Minister prepared to re-examine that point? Even if this is not the right place or the right Bill for that purpose, I think it should still be considered.

David Jamieson: I was about to come to that point, as the hon. Gentleman had raised the issue.
I am afraid that that has always been the case; the Bill does not change it. The magistrates can choose to operate at another level. I am told that if somebody came before the court with a fixed penalty, the court could, having heard some evidence, in certain circumstances decide to dismiss the case—in other words, effectively find the person not guilty. If that were the case, no penalty would be incurred. I am not a lawyer, but, as I understand it, that course of action is at the court's disposal.

David Wilshire: Again, that is helpful, but does the Minister accept that there could be circumstances of the sort I suggested, in which the last thing anybody would consider when this thing tumbled through the letter box was going to see a lawyer about something which, at the time, they would see as a trivial matter? They could easily plead guilty, not knowing that by pleading not guilty there would be an opportunity not to have the points put on their licence. Again, what the Minister said is helpful, but it does not overcome the problem.

David Jamieson: The same would apply to anybody who committed any offence in any shape or form. If one felt aggrieved, one would take advice. Then, if it was appropriate, one would go to the court. However, that applies not just to motoring offences or tickets but to virtually every offence.
I hope that that brings the hon. Gentleman some comfort. There would have to be special circumstances. One could not simply say, ''Oh, I didn't  see the sign'' or ''I hadn't realised that the speed limit had changed'', when manifestly the limiter signs were in place. 
There is one defence that people have used to have a ticket overturned. The hon. Member for Christchurch gave an example whereby a speed limit had been changed on a road. If somebody could demonstrate to the court that the road had not been sufficiently signed within the law, that would be a strong defence in the court. The case could then be dismissed and the ticket thrown out. However, somebody would have to demonstrate that, and I believe that, on occasions, they have. Certainly in the 30mph zone, people have sometimes shown that the legal designation of the limit had not been met and got their tickets overturned. There are probably not many occasions when that is possible. The risk is that unless one's evidence is very good, one may go to the court and find, as many people do, that the fixed penalty tends to be the lowest penalty that can be given and one leaves the court with a higher penalty, but that is the hazard of going to court.

David Wilshire: Of course it is possible to start arguing about technicalities, but if someone wants to cite mitigating circumstances I suspect the last thing on their mind will be playing the barrack-room lawyer and trying to trip up the system. A mitigating circumstance is a personal circumstance that overtakes a person. It is all very well to suggest that they could, if they knew it, take advice or argue whether the signs were in the right place, but I doubt whether that is what would be on their minds at the time.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Christchurch used the example of someone taking a person to hospital or rushing to a member of the family who was in hospital. It is understandable that if a driver wants to help a loved one or get to them rapidly in such circumstances, his mind may leave consideration of the road for a time. That is understandable; it is human and it could happen to us all. I have taken people to hospital on a few occasions. Once it was someone who was badly injured and losing a lot of blood, and it struck me that if I was going too fast I might occasion a further accident, which would increase the need for the person to get to hospital and decrease my ability to get them there.
It is difficult, in the cold light of day, to weigh up such things in an emergency. In the example given by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, if a person is rushing to visit someone in hospital, or is in an emergency situation or rushing to a catastrophe at home, I believe that the driver would almost certainly plead guilty or be found guilty of the offence, which would give the court no discretion about issuing penalty points. However, the magistrate may then say, ''Given what you have gone through and the fact that you have penalty points, I think you have suffered enough.'' He may decide not to inflict further penalty. That is my understanding of the operation of the law. I hope that that is helpful.

Christopher Chope: The Minister will recall that when we were debating the Traffic Management Act 2004, we dealt with the rigidities in the fixed penalty system and the representations made by adjudication officers that local authorities—effectively, they are the equivalent of the prosecuting authority in the cases that we are discussing now—should have the chance to review the circumstances and decide whether they wish to proceed.
What the Minister said makes it clear that the prosecuting authority has no discretion. It receives the letter of explanation from the person who has had the fixed penalty notice setting out the mitigating circumstances, but if there had been a police officer at the scene he would probably have exercised his discretion and said, ''I am not going to prosecute in these circumstances.'' We are arguing for a similar sort of discretion for the prosecuting authorities, to prevent a prosecution from proceeding.

David Jamieson: The difference is that the people issuing the tickets in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would largely be civilian traffic wardens. We are now talking about police officers, who are trained to a much higher level of competence—I do not mean that the others are not competent, but that the police officers operate under a different system and have a higher level of training. The person still has the safeguard of going to court, but most of the offences that the hon. Gentleman refers to would not attract penalty points. They would be parking offences, which do not attract penalty points on the licence, and there is the procedure whereby one can go back to the local authority and then, if necessary, to the adjudicator. In this case, however, once the police officer has made his judgment, it can be challenged in court.

Christopher Chope: I accept that is what happens if a police officer is present who makes a judgment on the situation, but I am describing what happens if the penalty is triggered by a machine—a safety camera—which cannot understand the circumstances involved. Surely, if the penalty is triggered by a machine, it should be possible to introduce a human element into the process so that discretion can be exercised and a prosecution not proceeded with.

David Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, I suggest that he visits his local safety camera partnership to see how it operates when it receives the film. Having seen that myself, I know that the person who looks at the film is highly trained. They must determine whether the equipment shows that someone was speeding and must look into other circumstances, such as the proximity of other vehicles. When there is close proximity of two vehicles, there may be confusion as to which vehicle triggered the light and I understand that there can be issues of the beam bouncing from one vehicle to another. The person who looks at the film uses discretion to ensure that cases are clear-cut when the penalty notices are  sent out. When I visited the safety camera partnership, a large number of cases—about 20 per cent. at a guess—were thrown out because the operator decided that they were not satisfied that the matter could not be challenged if the recipient of the penalty notice took the matter to court and the film was shown to the magistrates.
 On the other side in the Department, someone told us that he had been unfairly dealt with and we suggested that he send for the film. The guy sent the film to me and said it was disgraceful that he had been prosecuted, but it seemed to me that he had been travelling faster than indicated on his ticket. He claimed that a car nearby had set off the camera, but there was manifestly no other car in the photograph. The photographic evidence is available to the person who is accused of offending and could show that there was doubt, but it often puts the case beyond doubt. If someone feels that there is doubt, they can go to court and if the court feels that the evidence in front of it is not good enough, the magistrates or the judge can call the proceedings to an end.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will my hon. Friend clarify one matter? My father was once the recipient of a fixed penalty notice after he was caught on camera speeding when taking my son to hospital with a fractured skull. Is it not the case that even in such circumstances, there is always discretion as to whether to continue a prosecution?

David Jamieson: I think that was the point I was making. If someone is caught on camera and receives a fixed penalty fine, they would have to challenge it in court and hope to plead mitigation. On the one hand, they may want to try to prove that they were not driving above the speed limit and if they could demonstrate that in court, the case would be dismissed. If they pleaded guilty and said that they were speeding but that mitigating circumstances led them to do so, the court could reduce the financial penalty, but, as I understand it, there is no leeway within the law for it to reduce the penalty points on the licence.

Paul Stinchcombe: I fully understand the Minister's argument about a case that gets to court. I am asking whether there is an intermediary stage whereby someone might persuade the prosecuting authorities to withdraw a fixed penalty notice, or whether, once it has been issued, it is inexorable that it goes to court or leads to acceptance of a fixed penalty.

David Jamieson: If that exists, it is not known to me and I do not believe that there is any other intermediary stage. I know that some people have written to safety camera partnerships. If a partnership felt that a mistake had been made by one of its operators, it may have some discretion. If my hon. Friend wants more information, we can probe the matter in a little more depth, but I am not sure that it is wholly relevant to the clause.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is very generous in giving way. If there is no leeway at the moment, should there not be some? The Minister said that there is no leeway  under the law, but we have the opportunity in this Committee to change the law so that there is leeway and so that discretion can be introduced in circumstances such as those described by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe).

David Jamieson: What I am trying to say is that there is a fairly high degree of discretion. The operator in the police station or in a place attached to a police station who looks at the film uses a fairly high degree of discretion. I cannot comment on every operator but, from what I saw, I would say that operators erred very much on the side of doubt. I dare say that one or two people who had speeded excessively got away with it because there was a tiny element of doubt and the operator was not prepared to accept that the driver might go to court and be found not guilty. There is some discretion already within the system.

David Wilshire: I am aware that I took the Committee on this scenic byway instead of staying with the main principle of the clause. The Minister will have realised that I feel strongly about the matter. I readily accept that I am not a lawyer, but I am hearing things that lead me to believe that an informed and researched debate on the subject—I am not criticising the Minister in any way—might help to clear the air one way or the other. Perhaps I could table an amendment on Report to seek to build in some discretion. The Minister and the rest of us would by then have had a chance to do some research and perhaps we could usefully pursue the matter at that point.

Peter Pike: Before I call the Minister, may I say that I accept that some important issues have arisen, but that we must not go down too many scenic byways because we want to make progress?

David Jamieson: If the hon. Member for Spelthorne wants to go down a scenic byway, it is totally in his gift to do so on Report; or the matter could be the topic of a half-day Opposition day or even an Adjournment debate. I would be delighted to respond to a debate and to unravel the matter in as much detail as the hon. Gentleman felt appropriate. I am perfectly happy to mull over the matter.
This has been a useful and interesting debate in unravelling some of the issues that we have covered, but the amendments would not be helpful; in fact, I think they would be a hindrance to the proper operation of the law. Reluctantly, I ask the Committee to reject them.

Christopher Chope: Mr. Pike, I, too, welcome you to the Chair. It is a great pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship.
The Minister has addressed some of our concerns, but this interesting debate has highlighted a lacuna in the law, which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like addressed. It is the issue of someone who has personal mitigating circumstances which resulted in their speeding and being detected by a speed camera. Such personal mitigating circumstances would not be known by the operative  who looked at the film—the operative would not know, for example, that there was a sick child in the back of the car who was being taken to hospital. 
When we were discussing a similar issue in relation to the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the rigidity associated with, for example, moving traffic offences in box junctions and bus lanes, the then Minister was very accommodating in saying that a code of practice should operate to enable people who felt that a camera did not tell the whole story and who wanted to make written representations to the authorities to do so, thus giving the authorities the opportunity to say that in the circumstances they would not prosecute. Unfortunately, under the fixed penalty regime under clause 2, there is no equivalent discretion available to the authorities to enable them on receipt of representations from a motorist to decide that they will not prosecute. All that can happen is that the matter goes to court if the recipient of the fixed penalty notice looks at what I described earlier as a rather misleading form which says that if there are mitigating circumstances, the recipient should go to court. However, by the time they get to court, it becomes apparent that the court does not have any discretion to give the equivalent of an absolute or conditional discharge, which would be available in all other criminal proceedings.

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman describes a lacuna, but he is extending it beyond where it would go in law. If I remember my law correctly—admittedly, I last practised eight years ago—there is a court procedure allowing people to show special reason why their licence should not be endorsed, or why they should not be disqualified when they would otherwise lose their licence—for example, in totting. That is one procedure, but I would not want the hon. Gentleman to extend the lacuna beyond that.

Christopher Chope: It is many years since I looked at ''Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences'', the bible on such matters. It is true that special reasons can be dealt with in some circumstances, but that does not cover the situation described by the hon. Member for Wellingborough or by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I should have thought that, with the legal expertise of hon. Members and of those who are following our proceedings, it might be possible to address the problem.
It may not be as strong a case as that of someone taking their child to hospital in an emergency, but I heard of a case the other day in which a temporary traffic sign indicating that the speed limit had been reduced from the standard 50 mph in an urban area to 30 mph because of road words had been knocked down. 
The gentleman concerned said that although it was at night and the works were not in progress, the temporary speed limit sign had been knocked over. He wrote to the police saying that the sign had been knocked over and sending a photograph of it that he had taken the following morning when he went back to check. Notwithstanding that, he was told that there was no discretion because he had no defence. It was an  absolute offence. He was driving at a speed in excess of the prevailing 30 mph limit. The fact that the sign was knocked down was no defence. 
That is another example of what I would describe as special circumstances, although I accept that they may not be special reasons; but common sense dictates that the authorities should have exercised discretion. The authorities failed to use discretion in that case. The gentleman is now faced with two options—paying up, under protest, or taking his case to court in the knowledge that he has no defence but only mitigation, and the prospect that if he goes to court the fine may be larger than if he had settled for a fixed penalty. That is one issue that has been highlighted in our debate. 
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in a little more detail how the criteria set out in clause 2 will be applied. I am still not clear how the clause will work in practice; perhaps we can briefly touch on that aspect during the clause stand part debate. It is far from clear how people are to find out what the graduated fixed penalties will be, and what time scale is set for their introduction. 
I have given notice to the Minister of those questions that will arise on clause stand part. In the meantime, I invite everyone who reads the report of our debate, and those who have participated in it, to put on their thinking caps to see whether a way can be found—we could bring it forward later in the proceedings—to mitigate the full penalties in the special circumstances that we have outlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I have said that I would be interested to hear from the Minister what he has to say about the time scale for implementation and what it will mean in practice—whether the orders will be brought forward quickly, how much detail they will contain and so on.

David Jamieson: Before I come to that, I want to outline what the clause will do. Clause 2 amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that amounts of fixed penalties prescribed by order under section 53 can be graduated. The graduations would depend on the nature of the infringement and its severity, whether other prescribed offences have been committed during a prescribed period and where the offence took place.
We should remember that the clause does not create new offences. The hon. Member for Christchurch asked how people would know about the offences, but the offences remain unchanged. People can find out about them by reading the Highway Code, or even by breaking the law and being fined. We make it clear in the discussion document that before we go any further—this applies also to clause 3—there will be consultation. Following that, an order will have to be laid before the House, with another period before  implementation. People will find out about the law in the usual way, and, when appropriate, revisions will doubtless receive attention in the newspapers and motoring magazines. However, it is obviously up to the motorist to be aware of the penalties that can be attracted by the various infringements of the law.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps I can ask the Minister to give examples. As a result of having a wide range of penalties, when someone triggers a speed camera, they will receive a fixed penalty notice that is not for the minimum in the available range but is rather higher. The view is taken that it is a serious offence and/or that the offender appears to have committed a previous offence.
How will the offender know whether that higher range fixed penalty is the appropriate penalty? Will he have the opportunity to make representations about it? Will case law apply? Could he be referred to any practice guidance? Or, bearing in mind that each prosecuting authority is distinct, will he be operating completely in the dark? It would help if the Minister could explain how it will work, perhaps by way of example.

David Jamieson: As somebody who has not received too many such notices—in fact, I have not had one—[Interruption.] It is dangerous to say these things, and we can all transgress.
I have seen a notice, and I know that information is given with it showing the penalties. The notice also refers to the relevant Act. If someone felt that the information was not right, they could go to the library or seek legal advice to find out whether it was correct. They would have to trust what was on the notice, seek redress in the courts or take further consultation on the matter. 
Before thresholds are changed for the financial penalty or for the number of points on the licence, another process has to be gone through. As I will say when we come to clause 3, the provision merely gives the ability to vary the fines for those offences. It does not set out what the fines will be or how many points would apply to an offence.

Andy Reed: As those orders come forward, I am worried that we will end up with inconsistencies across the country in the interpretation of what is serious and so on. Will the Minister explain how we can achieve consistency? As we have heard, the postcode lottery affects many other issues, and I would hate different interpretations to apply in different regions or counties. Will the Minister explain how to overcome that?

David Jamieson: As my hon. Friend will see when we deal with the amendments to clause 3, our discussion document on speeding set a framework in which there could be no discretion—a person would be charged depending on the various elements. That was discussed and, if this becomes law, there will be further consultation. That is an example of a case in which, once a matter has been through consultation and discussed in Committees of the House, there is unlikely  to be discretion. However, in other cases, police officers enforcing the law will, as they do now, take the circumstances into account and make a judgment.
When a police officer at the side of the road pulls somebody up, he makes a judgment as to the severity of the offence—for instance, driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone might on some occasions not appear to be dangerous, whereas on other occasions, in a busy high street, with children crossing the road, it can be utterly outrageous. One could argue that at 3 o'clock in the morning, that there is still a danger—partly because more crashes happen at night than during the day—but that it is less dangerous. It is for police officers to make that judgment, just as they do now on almost all offences.

Christopher Chope: I am still slightly perplexed. The next clause deals only with speeding offences.

David Jamieson: May I help the hon. Gentleman? No it does not; clause 3 applies to all the offences and clause 2, which we are dealing with now, refers to the financial penalty. Clause 3 refers to the penalty points.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry; I stand corrected. This deals with the financial penalty and we have heard that, for example, somebody could be speeding at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, when there is hardly anybody about, compared with somebody driving at the same excessive speed but in more dangerous circumstances. The graduated penalties set out not only the penalty points, which will be dealt with in clause 3, but the fines. If the clause means anything, it surely means that somebody who, say, drives at 94 mph in conditions in which there is a lot of traffic will face a higher financial penalty than somebody who drives at 94 mph in the middle of the night. If that is not so, does that mean that the Minister does not take into account any of the criteria set out in (a) to (d) in relation to the speed at which a vehicle is travelling?

David Jamieson: Perhaps there is a slight confusion here. It might be my fault for not having explained the position with sufficient clarity. The criteria that we have in clause 2(2)(a) to (d) would be those used to fix the penalties for certain offences. The same would be the case in clause 3 for fixing the penalty points. Almost certainly, those will have to come back before the House for consideration in relation to secondary legislation, in which the criteria would be used to formulate the fine levels for certain offences.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that if one tried to introduce, as he does in his amendment, different times of day and night for the enforcement of, say, camera-operated speed limits, that would create almighty confusion. It would be almost unenforceable. The criteria would not apply to such offences. They would apply to the formulation of the penalty but not, once it was fixed, to the penalty itself. Once the criteria are fixed, the discretion goes out of the window.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that it has nothing to do with the Minister's ability to explain things. It is my fault that I cannot understand things. Therefore, I am grateful to him for that further explanation.
Question agreed to. 
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Graduated fixed penalty points

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out from 'as' to end of line 41 and insert
'set out in Schedule [Graduated Penalties]'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Graduated Penalties—
Lower penalty points 2 points and £40 fineStandard penalty 3 points and £60 fine Higher penalty 6 points and £100 fine  Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) 20 No lower penalty Up to and including 31 32 30 3940-44 45 40 50 51-56 57 50 61 62-69 70 60 72 73-81 82 70 83 84-93 94

Christopher Chope: : The amendment introduces a new schedule, which would put into the Bill the graduated penalties that would apply to speeding. I tabled the amendment because I believe that the Secretary of State accepted on Second Reading—it is apparent from the contributions to that debate and the wider debate outside—that this is a highly controversial subject. There are many different and sincerely held views. As we have a chance to consider primary legislation, we should debate, and put into the Bill, what we collectively, as parliamentarians, think is the right answer to what the graduated penalties should be for speeding.
The Government line is ''We know that, in our party, the Secretary of State takes one view, a number of his Back Benchers who spoke on Second Reading take another and outside interests take a third. We will sort it all out after we have had a little more consultation and we will introduce a statutory instrument that cannot be amended.'' I take the view that, if Parliament is to be taken seriously, we should collectively take responsibility for this issue ourselves, as Members of Parliament and particularly as members of the Committee. We have the chance to do that. Therefore, I have had a stab at putting down what I regard, and what the Minister and I think the Secretary of State regard, as the appropriate answer to this conundrum.

Paul Stinchcombe: Is it the hon. Gentleman's case that the Bill should contain a provision that reduces the penalty points for speeding between 30 mph and 39 mph, even though all the evidence indicates that that would lead to road deaths?

Christopher Chope: I am adopting exactly the same line as the Secretary of State adopted on Second Reading, and I do not doubt his sincerity. Certainly my view, subject to any arguments put forward in the Committee, is that the Government have started along the right lines. However, by tabling the schedule and the amendment, I wanted to start a debate around graduated penalties and seek agreement from members of the Committee, after proper discussion, that it is desirable that such penalties should be included in the Bill instead of being deferred to some stage in the future when we will not have a chance to amend the secondary legislation.

Paul Stinchcombe: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's case is not the same as the Secretary of State's, who is simply saying that there should be an enabling provision and then consultation and consideration before the set of penalties is established. The hon. Gentleman's position is rather different: he believes that we should enact legislation now that would reduce the penalties for speeding below 40 mph, even though many children would be killed by such acts of speeding.

Christopher Chope: I shall not get into a debate about whether the hon. Gentleman's last assertion is correct. He participated in the debate on Second Reading and heard what the Secretary of State said. The Secretary of State said that his view was that the right answer was as reflected in the table. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has tabled a specific amendment, which I can see some merit in. However, I thought that the best starting point would be to take what I understood to be the Government's line. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. The danger, and indeed the suspicion, may be that the Government want to take this power on the basis of one set of ideas—to have both lower and higher penalties—but that ultimately they might propose something different from what is set out here, which the Secretary of State supported on Second Reading, and we would not have a chance to change it.
All the arguments are already apparent; the consultation is already taking place. Why can we not decide now what to put in the Bill? If the new schedule were incorporated in the Bill today, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and others could move amendments to it on Report, some of which might be supported by me and my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends. 
I am not saying that the new schedule will be the final version, but, it was the best way to ensure that graduated penalties—this serious reform of road traffic law—were included in the Bill. I do not develop from my own background the arguments in support of each of these graduated penalties. I put them forward  on the basis that they are the ones that the Government want. I did not want to make life even more difficult for myself as an Opposition spokesman by trying to get the Government on side. I thought that I would adopt those arguments supported by the Secretary of State.

Andy Reed: I am grateful for that explanation. Clearly it is useful at some stage to start a debate. However, it would be helpful if, having tabled the new schedule, the hon. Gentleman spoke to it with support for the individual figures. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, I would be horrified at the idea that driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone would be classified as the norm to get three points. I am not sure that we as a Committee, on behalf of the rest of the House of Commons, have the ability to decide something as substantial as that. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could talk to his new schedule. He has just said that he will not, but it would be useful if he set out in more detail why he believes that the figures would be acceptable to the Committee.

Christopher Chope: I am trying to ensure that we do not have two debates on a similar issue. As I said, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside will shortly introduce a debate on her proposition, and I look forward to hearing her arguments, because I suspect that quite a lot of hon. Members are sympathetic to it. My approach was to have a starting point that was overtly supported by the Secretary of State on Second Reading.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman respond to my hon. Friend's question with more clarity? He knows—the evidence shows—that 90 per cent. of pedestrians hit at 40mph will die. Yet he is proposing that even driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph district should attract only three points. Does he honestly believe that to be a good proposal?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made an interesting comment on Second Reading, when she said that there was 54 or 58 per cent. non-compliance—I have not looked up the original figures—with the 30-mph speed limit. Therefore, speed limits are broken to a considerable extent. It would be desirable, as I said on Second Reading, to have much more discretion in the prosecution of and penalties for those who break speed limits, because the range of circumstances is enormous. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disagrees. In fact, earlier in this sitting he suggested that he was sympathetic to the proposition that circumstances are different on different occasions.
I am unhappy about the idea that there is a trade-off against injustice—for instance, people identified as speeding in light traffic by speed cameras suffering the same penalty as those who are caught when the traffic conditions are much heavier and, more importantly, the incidence of vulnerable road users is much greater. Concern has been expressed by some of the motoring organisations that there is some sort of trade-off: the Government realise that there is a great deal of rough  justice, so the people who are just over the speed limit might get only two points, rather than a higher penalty. I am a bit suspicious about that. However, my purpose in putting forward the amendment was to engage the support of the hon. Member for Wellingborough and others for the proposition that the detail should be included in the Bill. Whether his idea, or that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, or anybody else's, finally emerges, Parliament will have control over the process, rather than leaving it to the Executive. That is my primary concern, and my purpose in putting forward the new schedule. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough votes in favour of the new schedule, I can assure him that I shall not hold him to supporting every detail of it, because he will be supporting it in the knowledge that it will be possible to amend it to reflect other decisions of the Committee later on.

John Thurso: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike.
We will shortly discuss a number of amendments, in a debate introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. I have an amendment in that group, so I shall reserve the majority of my arguments for that debate and will now concentrate solely on the concern of the hon. Member for Christchurch about whether precise bands should be included in the legislation. Normally, I argue that as much as possible should be included in Bills—I believe that that is right, and I dislike secondary legislation in general. In this case, I shall argue the opposite, because I can foresee a situation in which we introduce, say, two penalty points in the circumstances that the hon. Member for Christchurch has outlined, and rapidly realise that it was a horrendous mistake. I do not think that we would be able to return to primary legislation to correct that mistake, and it is important that we have the ability to make changes if we discover that what we have done is not correct. 
I have grave doubts about going down to two points in relation to speed limits lower than 40 mph, as I shall explain later. I would wish to have the safeguard that, if that did happen, there would be a reasonably straightforward way in which Parliament could make a change without having to resort to primary legislation.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that we should, during these proceedings, put something into the Bill, coupled with a power for the Secretary of State to amend any of the detail in the schedule, should he so wish?

John Thurso: I have not considered that. Our next debate will be about laying down minimum criteria, and I do not want to go through that debate now, and trespass on the good nature of the Chair. I should merely like to say that I do not support the schedule because I believe that we should have the ability to change. It is not a situation in which primary legislation is appropriate.

David Wilshire: I welcome you as well, Mr. Pike. I clarified with your co-Chairman that I could take off my jacket, but I have not done so, because I was told off once by a Chairman for doing it without asking.

Peter Pike: Order. I do not expect to be asked. As far as I am concerned, in Committee's that I chair, if Members wish to remove their jackets they may automatically do so.

David Wilshire: It might be helpful if the Clerks' Department were to publish a list of the views of each member of the Chairmen's Panel—and we could move on.
As I understand the Government's position, there is nothing between us and them on the principle of grading. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the Government and supporting my hon. Friends. Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I would not wish to go to the stake over any of the figures, but let us make sure that there is a consensus. 
Having got that out of the way, my first point is underlined by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), who was ever so helpful to my case when he said that we as a Committee ought not to be in a position to take these decisions on behalf of the House of Commons. I agree with him, and, welcoming him to my long-standing cause to ensure that Governments of the day, irrespective of party, have the least necessary power to do the job that they should be doing, I would extend his point. Continually to give Secretaries of State the power to introduce more and more legislation by order is something that I am concerned about. 
The hon. Gentleman makes the case better than I. When he says that the Committee is not capable of taking these decisions, and that it should be the House of Commons that does so, I say, ''Exactly so.'' The Secretary of State should not be the person who takes the decision by order; it should be the whole House, following a proper debate. If there must be a statutory instrument, I do not know whether in this instance it will be by an affirmative or negative resolution, and it cannot be amended either way, so I believe that we should have control over the decision. There are some things in this world that can usefully be seen as administrative chores. I do not mind Secretaries of State doing chores; I object to Secretaries of State controlling my life. 
Many of constituents feel passionately about their rights to drive their cars. It works up more agitation than many other issues, and our constituents have every right to look to us as their elected representatives, rather than leave it to whoever happens to be Secretary of State, to settle such matters as whether they lose their licence and how quickly they lose it. It is possible that a fairly prominent politician who took pride in not driving would want to persecute car drivers. If we were to have such a Secretary of State, who knows what might happen on the basis of a personal view? I am against this approach in principle. 
I am sure that the Government will say that we do not want such provisions in the Bill, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch says, when the  Minister responds he needs to tell us what the Government think about the figures. Whether or not they should be in the Bill, we are being asked to agree to give the Secretary of State power. If the Minister wants us to accept that our approach is wrong, it would be ever so helpful if he could tell us what the current Secretary of State might use such powers for.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for trying to portray what I was trying to say earlier. Similar to his hon. Friend, I would be interested to know whether he supports the figures in the chart, because I am worried not only about the principle. The point that I was trying to make about the Committee not being able to make the decision is that we have an amendment before us that includes some figures, and if we agree to it and include it in the Bill, serious consequences will follow. I am not quite sure that in a half-hour or even a 20-minute debate, we can go into the provision's finer implications.
Aside from the general implications of amending the Bill, I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman would speak to any of the mileage figures, whether they are from the table or the graduated penalties.

David Wilshire: I may or I may not; it just depends on how the debate unfolds. If the Minister were to accept that approach and give some indication of the sort of figures that he thinks should apply, I might be prepared to agree with the Government.
If the Minister were to say that he accepted the principle but wanted to come back on Report with a well-researched schedule, I would feel much more confident about joining the debate. We ought to establish first whether the Government accept the approach. If they do, more than half an hour would be needed to deal with the matter. For the moment, that is where I will leave it, except that I shall come back on one other related point in a moment. 
I am pleased with the suggestion that there ought to be or could be some flexibility. There is an admission of the need for flexibility, whether it is achieved by order or this amendment, as well as graded points. We have had this debate before, so I shall not go over the ground again. If the Government cannot go as far as I would like, I would welcome an approach that indicated that they at least see the difference between something that attracts six penalty points and something that attracts two penalty points. Perhaps if I had been more alert before the Committee started, it would have been possible to table a new schedule that provided for no penalty points up to two penalty points at the lowest level. I readily accept that even in the worst circumstances certain things need punishing by penalty points. There is some flexibility here, which I welcome. 
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that, because most people are killed at speeds of less than 45 mph, we should not limit the number of penalty points to two. It is as though he assumes that arguing for  fewer points is the same thing as saying, ''Let us scrap penalties completely and invite people to drive fast.'' I do not buy into the concept that people would race past schools if the current arrangements were changed. I do not know where the evidence is for that.

Paul Stinchcombe: My point is simply that the penalty should reflect the danger posed by that culpable driver. If 50 per cent. of pedestrians hit at 30 mph will live but 90 per cent. of pedestrians hit at 40 mph will die, I see no justification at all for the penalty point reduction that he advocates in the 30 to 40 mph span.

David Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Such questions are part and parcel of determining what detail one would support. I understand his argument, but he seems to advance it on the basis that anything less than we have at present is an open invitation to flout the law. We should not automatically rule out consideration of variations up and down in all circumstances. That is all that I am saying, and I would not wish to go to the stake for something else.

Andy Reed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is probably sending out a mixed message? I almost could have lived with sticking at three points and then graduated penalties upwards, but reducing the penalty to two points, particularly with the figures in the new schedule, sends out a message that driving between 30 and 39 mph is more acceptable than it was before. Is not that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was making, and is not that the message that the Committee would send if we were to agree to the provision?

David Wilshire: I doubt that abolishing hanging for stealing sheep was seen as an open invitation to steal sheep. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Christopher Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that the argument that he has just been deploying about people not deliberately driving at 39 mph in order to get two penalty points instead of three is the same argument that was deployed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading to support the figures in the table?

David Wilshire: Exactly so. We should not be inflexible if we are trying to introduce flexibility. I understand, Mr. Pike, that if you were to allow this debate to continue, and if we were willing to continue it, we could be picking over the figures at this time tomorrow, having made no progress whatsoever. To me, that is not the purpose of the debate.
The purpose is, first, to explore the approach of flexibility and graduated penalties—I think that we all agree with that—and, secondly, to explore whether we should be giving more power to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. I support the first principle. I do not support giving that power to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done the Committee a service by bringing forward his amendment. He is not claiming that it is perfect. I gather that Labour. Members do not consider it  anywhere near perfection, but that is not the point. I am fascinated to hear what the Minister says. We will see where we go from there.

David Jamieson: We have concentrated on speeding in the debate. However, that is not what the clause is about. As I said when intervening on the hon. Member for Christchurch, the clause is about all offences to which penalties might apply. In amendment No. 12, the hon. Gentleman would, whether inadvertently or intentionally, I do not know which, effectively make the clause apply only to speeding and not to the variable offences for other types of offence. If we passed the amendment, we would be limiting the clause to speeding and would not cover other offences that attract points, such as right-hand turns at no right-hand turn places and yellow box offences. That is the first deficiency of the amendment. In concentrating on speed, the hon. Gentleman has ruled out many other offences which could apply. We are, of course, talking about the ability to increase the penalty as well as the ability to decrease it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about new schedule 1 as a starting point, but it is a finishing point. Once it is in primary legislation, there will be no coming back to it for further discussion or deliberation. The issue will be closed. He argued that the matter should be fixed in the Bill. I will return to the question of where the hon. Gentleman got the figures from. He then intervened on the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to say that flexibility should be built in for the Secretary of State to change the figures if they are wrong. Is he talking about using a statutory instrument? Ah! Is that not what we have in mind? Once the hon. Member for Christchurch had contradicted himself, he was put right by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who contradicted him by saying that the figure should be written into the Bill with no discretion. So, there seems to be some confusion about the matter. 
I am with those who say that we must return to the issue. I am beginning to regret that we gave those exemplars. We put out not a consultation document but a document for discussion. There is a difference. We wanted to get views about variable penalties and penalty points. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that the document was controversial. Some of it was not controversial. The vast majority of those who made their views known said that they agreed that the law should include the ability to have variable points and penalties for offences. There was widespread agreement on that. 
As is often the case, if we put something out for discussion, it instantly becomes a proposal that we are about to inflict on people tomorrow. That is, unfortunately, the way in which debate in this country goes. I do not know whether it is because of our newspapers. If anybody suggests something for debate, it becomes something that will happen immediately.

Louise Ellman: Will the Minister tell us the difference between a document for discussion and one for consultation?

David Jamieson: There is a specific format for a consultation document. There is a list of consultees, who we contact proactively. We operate a formal consultation system. Usually, forms go out for people to fill in and add other details. It is more formalised. In many instances, we get similar responses. In this case, because many of the people who responded were used to responding to consultation documents, many responded in a similar form. Nevertheless, it was a discussion.
In the discussion paper, we gave an example of how the system might work in the context of speeding. That is where the amendment came from. However, that was not a proposal. It was just an example of how the system could work. I am beginning to regret that we included it, but we felt that it was helpful. We were being challenged by people who were asking what would actually happen and saying that we could not have a change in the law without concrete proposals. So, we gave an exemplar of how the system could work if that was what we agreed.

David Wilshire: I accept what the Minister says, but as I listened to him I began to feel a bit hard done by. Does he accept that, although I do not have a huge number of civil servants to come up with a beautifully honed argument, I was saying before, when I was being questioned, ''What, exactly, is the Minister saying?'' Let us have a discussion. Here are some figures; let us talk about them. We are not necessarily wedded to them. I am grateful to the Minister for using better language than I could find.

David Jamieson: I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of new schedule 1. He must be opposing it. We will probably hear him speak or vote against it later.

David Wilshire: Whatever makes the Minister think that?

David Jamieson: What the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago. I will not presume it any further.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He talked about the right to drive a car. I defend that right. There are many people, certainly in my constituency—in which not everybody is affluent—who are driving a car that they were not driving five, six or seven years ago, when the economy was not doing so well and employment was not as high as it is today. However, along with the right to drive a car comes the responsibility to drive carefully. The more vehicles that there are on the road, the more we must ensure that people are responsible and careful. The responsibility of Government is to ensure that people exercise their right to drive a car in a way that does not infringe the rights of others.

David Wilshire: When the Minister reads Hansard, he will find that I did not say that people have the right to drive cars when, where, how and as irresponsibly as they like. I simply said that there is a right to drive. I agree with him, but he is putting words in my mouth.

David Jamieson: No, I did not put words in the hon. Gentleman's mouth; I included some extra words in Hansard. I wanted to make it clear that I agree with him on the right to drive, but that my understanding of that is that people should also have responsibilities. I was outlining that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that people drive safely. Parliament also has a responsibility. That is why the measures in the Bill will be so helpful in ensuring that that happens.
Making the proposals apply only to speeding is unhelpful and I would oppose the amendment and new schedule on that basis. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted further discussion. We want further discussion, but if we agreed to new schedule 1, it would inhibit further discussion. What I heard on Second Reading, at the beginning of today's debate and from people outside Parliament, and what I will hear a bit more in a moment, is that some of the things in the discussion paper—very few things—are controversial. I want the ability to have flexibility, but I also want a further period of reflection about thresholds and implementation. I want to listen carefully to what Parliament and those outside Parliament have to say when we come up with more concrete proposals following consultation.

John Thurso: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I would like him to confirm that I have understood correctly that the consultation document, or discussion document, and the schedule therein, are purely exemplars and that the Government are completely open to representations and evidence as to what are or are not the best figures.

David Jamieson: I should just like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. It was not a consultation document but a discussion document. A consultation would be more likely to include Government proposals, but these were not even proposals. They were exemplars of how a system might operate. Perhaps that might also make the distinction clear for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside. They were not proposals, but examples of how a system could work if we chose to operate it in that way.
In the light of the debate we are having and further representations we receive, if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its present form we would want to introduce a proposal, which would be firmed up into a statutory instrument. That would then be put before the House under the positive resolution procedure.

Christopher Chope: So the proposition that will be introduced for consultation will not necessarily be what is contained in the exemplar table. If that is so, why was the Secretary of State so keen to defend the contents of the exemplar table on Second Reading, as though it were Government policy?

David Jamieson: No, what the Secretary of State defended was the ability to give the variable penalties. He also said that the next stage of the process will be open to consultation. That is what was said then; it is still true, and it is the position I want.
The matter has created an interesting debate, which will probably flow into the discussion of the next group of amendments. However, I ask the Committee to oppose this particular amendment.

Christopher Chope: It has indeed been a useful debate, and the Minister has clarified the matter of extending the graduated fixed penalty points beyond the area of speeding, although that has not hitherto been flagged up in any Government document. It was the Home Office review of road traffic penalties that flagged up the need for some higher fixed penalties for those concerned about excessive speeding. There was never any suggestion that we would be considering different degrees of gravity in relation to some of the other offences to which the Minister referred.
I have not got the Official Report detailing what happened on Second Reading, but I sat through the whole debate and I heard with my own ears what the Secretary of State said. I think the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has a copy of the record of that debate, and I would be surprised if the Secretary of State did not say that what was contained in the proposals on new graduated fixed penalties for speeding was his judgment of the best way forward. However, if the Government are changing their mind on that in response to pressure, we shall no doubt find out more about it in the next debate. 
The best way forward would be to see what comes out of the next debate. It may well be that after the next debate we shall get closer to reaching a consensus on what should be contained in such a table. If we do get to that stage, I would support the idea of including it in the Bill on Report, perhaps subject to the ability of the Government to change it later. That is a very different proposition from giving the Government discretion to change everything, and taking their word in good faith without the opportunity to amend the detail of the secondary legislation. In the mean time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Louise Ellman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
 '(8B) The Secretary of State may not make any order under subsection (3A) above which would have the effect of reducing the fixed penalty for exceeding a speed limit set at or below 30 miles per hour below 3 points.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 3, in clause 16, page 22, line 29, leave out '2-6' and insert '3-6'. 
No. 28, in clause 16, page 22, line 29, leave out '2-6' and insert '1-5'. 
No. 4, in clause 16, page 22, line 33, leave out '2-6' and insert '3-6'. 
No. 29, in clause 16, page 22, line 33, leave out '2-6' and insert '1-5'. 
'''3-6 or appropriate penalty points (fixed penalty points (fixed penalty) if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 penalty points (fixed penalty) in other cases.'' 
(c) ''restricted road'' in subsection (b) means a road as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).'. 
No. 5, in clause 16, page 22, line 34, at end add 
'if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 or appropriate penalty points (fixed penalty) in any other case, and (c) ''restricted road'' in paragraph (b) means a road defined as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).'.

Louise Ellman: The lead amendment is very specific. Its aim is to prevent the Government's proposals for graduated penalties from reducing a fixed penalty for exceeding speed limits of 30 mph or less to below three points.
The concern about the issue has arisen from the Government's discussion document. I note the Minister's statement that he regrets having published it. I am not sure whether he regrets having published the document, or whether he has regrets about some of the proposals in it. One of them is to reduce the penalty points by a third for people driving at between 30 and 39 mph in a 30 mph zone, as well as reducing the fine. I am extremely concerned about that. I know from the statements made by my hon. Friends in this Committee, as well as by others on Second Reading and elsewhere, that that concern is widespread. 
To explain the reasons for that concern, let me quote the Department for Transport's own very powerful advertising campaign. It was launched on 11 January and will continue until February. It states very clearly, ''It's 30 for a reason''—''30'' being the 30 mph speed limit. The campaign centres round a poster, which is accompanied by graphic sequences, now on television and due to be shown in the cinema, showing the profound difference for a pedestrian between the impact of being knocked down by a vehicle travelling at 30 mph and one travelling at 40 mph. Both the poster and the graphics are very effective. 
The campaign sends out the very good message that the Department regards the 30 mph speed limit as something of extreme importance, and relates it directly to the safety of pedestrians. It is clear that speed kills. It is a contributory factor in some 1,000 deaths and 38,000 injuries every year. The evidence is that a change of speed, an increase at around the 30 mph mark, has the greatest effect on the potential for killing and seriously injuring vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists. 
It is true that drivers cannot be held responsible for all accidents that happen; they are not always to blame. However, in setting appropriate speed limits, particularly in built-up areas, surely we must take account of the nature of pedestrian and cyclist movements, as well as of those of drivers. The facts borne out by the evidence are clear: a driver is twice as likely to kill a pedestrian if he hits him at 35 mph than if he hits him at 30 mph. At 30 mph, half of those knocked down will survive, but at 40 mph 90 per cent. of adults and 80 per cent. of children will die. 
Most pedestrian and cyclist casualties occur in built-up areas where the speed limit is 30 mph or lower. In 2003, only 145 of the 2,976 children killed or seriously injured while walking or cycling were not on built-up roads, so the problem is not just about speeding but about speeding in built-up areas where there is a speed limit of 30 mph. Every death is tragic and every serious injury sustained is of serious concern and can disrupt and damage the individual's life, possibly for ever. 
Beyond that, however, there is a link between death and serious injury to vulnerable road users and poverty. Let us consider the situation in part of Liverpool, where a safer road partnership is now operating. The figures for 2002 showed that 100 per cent. of people killed or seriously injured in the zero to 11 age range and 50 per cent. of all car occupants killed or seriously injured in the 25 to 39 age range occurred in the north Liverpool area, which is in the top 5 per cent. of deprived areas in the UK. I repeat that, while every death or serious injury to anybody, wherever they are and whatever their position in life, is equally tragic, there is a concentration of the problem in areas that are deprived. 
At the moment, 58 per cent. of drivers in built-up areas break the speed limit, and there is a preponderance and concentration of fatalities and serious accidents and injuries in the same built-up areas. In those circumstances, and given the evidence that we have nationally and locally, what sense can it make to reduce the penalties for speeding at the threshold where people are most vulnerable to death and injury on the road? I cannot see any reason for doing that. It would weaken the deterrent message that the Government and the Department for Transport are trying to send out. 
I do not oppose the principle of graduated penalties. It is important that, before penalties are set, there is the widest possible consultation and consideration of the impact of those penalties. I do oppose, in principle, reducing the penalties in the area in which it has been proved that most harm is caused to pedestrians and cyclists. 
In conclusion, I return to the poster issued by the Department for Transport. On it, a child says: 
 ''Hit at 40mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll die. Hit at 30mph: There is an 80 per cent. chance I'll live.'' 
With those facts in front of us, and having listened to what the Minister said, I hope he will assure us that the Government will not go ahead with the statement in the discussion document, which is widely regarded as a proposal.

John Thurso: The hon. Lady has put the case powerfully. I will not repeat either her arguments, which she put extremely ably, or the statistics, which I suspect most of us in the Room agree with and are  knowledgeable about. I made similar points and used similar statistics on Second Reading and will not take up the Committee's time with them.
It seems to me that the objectives of the Bill and the clause must be twofold. The first is to make our roads safer and to ensure that the number of people killed or seriously injured diminishes. That is what we are all here to do. The second objective is to ensure that the system of justice and the application of justice for motorists and motoring offences is appropriate and just. 
The amendments all share at heart a similar concern that, particularly in built-up areas where the speed limit is 40 mph or below or, most probably 30 mph, the outcome of the accident is not properly reflected by a reduction in penalty points from three to two. If the Government were to adopt the schedule in their discussion paper—and I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that they are open to persuasion—the House would effectively say to the outside world, ''We are a third less worried about 30 mph to 39 mph than you all thought we were, and a little bit of moderate speeding in towns isn't that bad.'' However much we may seek to address other questions about the perceived injustice or justice in respect of motorists, for the House to send out that message would be wholly wrong. We must be careful about what we say, what we include in law and the effect that it has on public perception. 
It is possible to change what we want to do in order to send out the appropriate message and to ensure that the motorist is correctly dealt with. To do that, we must ask the right questions, and I am not sure that we are. Two issues relate to speed. First, there are questions about whether speed limit signs are correct. We will come to amendments on that subject later, so I will not trespass on it now. However, the questions include whether we should have more 20 mph home zones, and whether roads in rural villages should all have 30 mph limits. There are many areas in which we could lower the speed limit; there are also areas where the speed limit might be examined and raised. Occasionally speed limits have been put up and the 30 mph sign is so far in front of a village that the motorist asks, ''What's the point of this?'' He speeds through the first quarter mile or half mile and does not slow down at the point where the real danger starts. 
Secondly, there is the perceived injustice—I stress perceived—that motorists feel when the totting up after four offences brings them to 12 points and obligatory disqualification. I will argue an extreme case, which I do not think is particularly likely, but it is possible for a motorist to be caught four times in succession on a motorway doing 75 mph or 76 mph, receive three points for each of those and then a ban. One might well say that that motorist was somewhat hard done by. My example is unlikely given the way in which our current legislation is enforced and the guidelines that exist, but it is possible. 
With respect to the amendments, however, I am deeply concerned that if the proposals advanced were to become law, we would send a message to motorists that is wholly wrong and counter-productive for areas where the speed limit is below 40 mph, and particularly 30 mph. 
I have no problem with the overall principle of graduated punishment to fit the growing severity of crime—that is part of the British justice system and I have no qualms about it. I believe strongly that the outcome for pedestrians, particularly children, has to be taken into account. The statistics dealing with cars travelling below 40 mph and at around 30 mph—as has been well illustrated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside—show that a child is 90 per cent. likely to die if hit by a car going at 39 mph. We simply cannot afford to send out a message that does not take account of that fact. I look forward to hearing what other Committee members say, and the Minister's response. I am grateful to note from the previous debate that the Minister is listening to our representations.

David Kidney: It is a pleasure, Mr. Pike, to serve on a Committee that you chair, with all your experience and fair-mindedness to guide us. I declare that I co-chair the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, but all I shall say is my own contribution.
I support the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside to defend the importance of the 30 mph speed limit. As she said in her powerful speech, there is currently a hard-hitting Government advertising campaign reinforcing the 30 mph limit, and the graphic television advertisement ends with the slogan, ''It's 30 for a reason''. We all ought to pause and remember that, in the areas where there is a 30 mph limit, there is most likely to be the greatest interaction between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course, among the cyclists and pedestrians, there will be a high proportion of children. 
Although we have a good record of reducing casualties in comparison with many countries, we do not do as well in terms of child casualties. However, the statistics show our international reputation: we do better than most countries and we have a very good record. However, the statistics show that, last year, there were 3,508 fatalities on our roads, 33,707 serious injuries and more than 253,000 slight injuries. 
All of us have probably met someone who has been touched by a tragedy caused by deaths on the road, so we can all appreciate most vividly the human effects of those deaths, and serious and slight injuries on our  roads. That should be enough to make us determined to drive those figures down still further. However, dare I say that there is also an economic cost? The latest figures, from 2002, show an economic cost of each fatality to the public purse of £1,447,490, £168,260 for each serious injury and £16,750 for each slight injury. As guardians of the public purse, we should also want to drive down the number of casualties on our roads in order to save money too. 
Most people agree that speed is a contributing factor to about a third of the casualties on our roads. There are more than 1,000 deaths on our roads a year because of excessive speed. That is why it is important to get people to reduce speed: it will reduce casualties on our roads. 
I have explained that most of the danger is in built-up areas where the speed limit is 30 mph. As the law makers in this country, if we are satisfied that that is the right speed limit, we should expect all citizens to stick to it. When the hon. Member for Christchurch tells us about huge non-compliance, that should concern us and we should want to do something about it. I would not have thought that we would conclude that the best way to secure better compliance was to reduce the penalties for the offence. We should want to do something about matters such as the enforcement of the law, education and engineering measures to force vehicles to stick to the speed limit. 
On the same day as Second Reading, the Secretary of State published a written statement about the responses that he had received to the discussion notes that he published on 1 September. He gives a helpful breakdown of what people said about his proposals. I would like to mention what he said about our activities. He points out that the Bill proposes that there must be statutory consultation on any fixed proposals that the Secretary of State might wish to make. He says: 
 ''I believe that the Bill should provide for the possibility of a lower penalty in the appropriate circumstances.'' 
He adds that when he issues his proposals, there will be consultation and, of course, he says that he will consider 
''all comments that hon. Members may have on graduated fixed speeding penalties, in discussions on the Bill.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 16WS.] 
I would like to give my views for the Secretary of State to consider. I suggest that reducing the penalty from three points to two points in 30 mph speed limit areas would give a dangerous signal to people at a time when we are trying to give them the message that they should obey the law. If they do not, people will suffer serious injuries and death. Giving the alternative message would be very dangerous.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend obviously has great knowledge and experience of these issues. Will he tell the Committee, objectively, whether he is aware of any evidence to suggest that lowering the penalty for excessive speed will in any circumstances improve road safety?

David Kidney: Of course, my hon. Friend anticipates that I will not be able to give any such evidence. He is right: I cannot. I entirely agree with him.
I want to move on to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) about the cumulative effects of penalty point endorsements on one's licence. On Second Reading—the hon. Member for Christchurch is quite right; I have got the Hansard with me—the Secretary of State was challenged about giving the wrong message by reducing the penalty points from three to two in 30 to 40 mph areas. He posed the question: 
 ''Is it right to impose a two-point penalty and a 30 to 40 mph speed limit?'' 
He went on to answer: 
 ''Having considered that question for some weeks, the matter turns on whether people believe that a two-point penalty, as opposed to a three-point penalty, means that someone will be more likely to speed—in other words, the difference is one point.''—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 218.] 
I think that he was picking up on a briefing for Second Reading that we all received from the RAC Foundation, in which it said that it did not believe that there was any lessening of the deterrent effect by having a penalty of two points, rather than three. 
I fundamentally disagree that a reduction does not amount to a lessening of the deterrent, but I would also like to bring in the point about cumulative effects. In this country, for many decades, we have espoused the principle that, although one speeding offence might not be enough for somebody to lose their licence, if they keep offending eventually they must get the message in a more severe way: by losing their licence. Initially, we had a general rule that somebody with three endorsements on three separate occasions in three years would, on the third occasion, in addition to the penalty for that offence, lose their licence. That was for speeding and other motoring offences. In 1981, the Conservative Government decided that that was too crude a system and they introduced penalty points. They attributed three penalty points for speeding and said that it would take a cumulation of 12 penalty points in three years to lose one's licence. So, instead of three speeding offences in three years to lose a licence, it was four. It could be argued that that was a lessening of the measure, but it was a new, more sophisticated system. It bedded down well and it has stood the test of time. I would caution against trying to revisit it. 
Let us bear in mind somebody who keeps speeding in 30 mph areas at up to 40 mph. They would keep getting two points and they would have to be caught and punished six times in three years for breaking the speed limit—and running the risk of killing somebody—before they lost their licence. That would take quite some doing. Therefore, reducing the risk that totting up will lead to a compulsory disqualification is a second lessening of the deterrent. 
I have a great deal of respect for the RAC Foundation and do not dismiss its arguments lightly. I support its proposal of more educational courses for people who we catch committing offences, which is a better route for us to choose than the one proposed. In this case, that would mean speed awareness courses, which are not yet universal across the country. Staffordshire recently joined the scheme and has been running courses for a year. I hope that we can catch more speeders and either require them or make it worth their while to undergo such a course. 
I look back to the interdepartmental working party on road traffic law of the Department of Transport and the Home Office in 1981, just before the Transport Act 1981. Even then it was suggested that further consideration should be given to the introduction of compulsory remedial training schemes for offenders. It is time that we made that old idea a reality. 
I tabled amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which provide a range of options that would not involve going under three penalty points. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 taken together would mean that under no circumstances would a motorist be able to pick up just two penalty points for a speeding offence. Amendment No. 4 on its own would mean that only on motorways and trunk roads would somebody pick up only two points for a speeding offence. 
On amendment No. 5, something was lost in the translation. I had intended to table an amendment with the exact wording of amendment No. 37, to which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross spoke. It would have the effect that nobody driving under 40 mph would be able to receive a two-point penalty. 
That great range of choices leads me to conclude that the Minister is right that there is still work to be done and consultation to be had before a final system is chosen from all the different options. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but I hold the Secretary of State to his word that he is listening to what Members of Parliament say.

Paul Stinchcombe: I shall briefly explain why I endorse all the speeches that have been made thus far on the amendments. I understand the case of my hon. Friend the Minister that this is just an empowering provision and that he seeks flexibility. However, try as I might, I cannot understand why he would want the power or the flexibility to reduce the penalty points for speeding between the limits of 30 to 39 mph when there is a speed limit of 30 mph. After all, speed limits are not arbitrary. We have different speed limits for different areas to reflect the safe driving speed for that locality and the conditions that pertain there. Moreover, there is a clear relationship between excessive speeding and the frequency of accidents, and there is an even more clear direct relationship between excessive speeding and fatalities. We have seen the figures: 20 per cent. of people will die when hit at 30 mph, but 90 per cent. will  die at 40 mph. I happen to believe that the penalties for driving offences should reflect that evidence of increased danger.
We are debating the Road Safety Bill at a time when there are adverts that explain the rationale for the 30 mph limit. Other hon. Members have alluded to them. How can we come to this place and argue to reduce the penalty for driving at that very cusp where there is so obviously an increased danger to life, especially when we know that the people who are most at risk are children in poorer areas—working-class areas? Those are the people who are dying. We should remember that 3,500 people die on our roads every year, leaving behind countless other victims: parents, in-laws, sisters, brothers and friends. For all those reasons, it seems inappropriate that we could send out a mixed message today. 
Earlier this week, I was on a Radio 5 Live phone-in programme about road fatalities. I heard many chilling contributions from people who had lost loved ones, but in some respects the most chilling contribution of all was a text saying, ''Get a life—99.9 per cent. of us speed and none of us intend to kill.'' But the fact is that 3,500 people die every year. I wonder whether that is because people drive at excessive speeds, where there is a 30 mph limit in particular.

Mark Fisher: I do not think, Mr. Pike, that I have served under your chairmanship before, and it is a pleasure to do so.
I also come to these debates as a complete novice. Unlike most other members of the Committee, I have not studied these issues before. Like almost all motorists, I was hugely impressed by the Government's campaign—the poster campaign to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside referred—and even more so by the starkness of the television campaign. I confess to having been one of those drivers who thought that if I was driving at roughly 30 mph in built-up areas, I was doing all right. That campaign made me ashamed, and made me reassess how I drive in city areas. I found the campaign chilling and very effective. 
I was equally impressed by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside, for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Stafford and of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Their understanding of the matter, and the points that they made in support of their amendments, are telling; I was impressed and persuaded by them. However, although I agree with them, is it not possible that debates about penalty points are slightly missing the point? The whole thrust of the Government's campaign was that it is speed that kills. The only radical way to address that problem, and to try to bring down the horrific figures of which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside reminded the Committee, is to reduce the speed. 
If fewer children—and adults—are killed at 30 mph than at 40 mph, is that not a compelling reason, in built-up and residential areas where there is currently a 30 mph speed limit, for reducing that limit to 20 mph? Being a novice, I do not know whether there are compelling reasons for that being a naive approach.  Perhaps a 20 mph speed limit would paralyse city centres, although I cannot imagine that that would be true, because in few city centres does the traffic move at anything like 20 mph. 
Such a reduction in speed limit would not be a huge inconvenience to us as motorists, and I would have thought that it had a much better chance of being effective than playing around with the penalty points system or retaining the penalty point system and making it tougher. However, I propose that not as a substitute for the penalty points system, but in addition to it. I hope that, at various points in our consideration of the Bill, the Minister will address that problem. 
There may be opportunities later in our consideration of the Bill to debate speed limits. In view of the excellent points that have been made in this short debate, I believe that there is a compelling reason for reducing the limit to 20 mph. The public might not like it, initially, and might view it as the nanny state, but if it saved a great many lives and only marginally inconvenienced us as motorists, there is a strong case in favour of it.

Christopher Chope: This has been an excellent debate, and it is great that, unlike on some Standing Committees on which I have served, everyone is joining in, with the exception of the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who I imagine has other responsibilities and does not wish to join in, and, of course the lady Whip, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), although she has been given plenty of food for thought in listening to the potent comments of Government Members.
The debate has highlighted the fact that the Government are making a mistake in simply equating the gravity of a speeding offence with the extent to which the limit was exceeded. It is apparent to everyone who studied the subject that the circumstances in which the speeding takes place are what is important. That is why someone speeding over the 30 mph limit in a built-up area when there are vulnerable road users around is committing a more serious offence than somebody who does the same thing when there is nobody around apart from a few urban foxes. 
Nothing in the graduated points system addresses that issue. It always used to be that one should drive at an appropriate speed in all circumstances. Enforcement became difficult and it was tiresome to assess each case on its circumstances, and so speed limits were brought in as a proxy for the proposition that one should keep one's driving at an appropriate speed. 
We have now got to the situation where speed limits do not have flexibility, apart from on some motorways following the Road Traffic Act 1991, which I had the privilege of steering through the House. That introduced the power for variable speed limits. I want much more use of that power, particularly in urban areas, where there are widely differing circumstances. They depend, for example, on the time of day. 
There should also be more scope for flexibility. The perfect speed limit is one that it is inappropriate to exceed in perfect conditions. That is what it should be. Most people now seem to think that it is perfectly all right to exceed the speed limit in good conditions, within the tolerance allowed by the police, and to keep roughly within the limit when conditions are not very good. 
The importance of speed limits has been eroded because local authorities have often set speed limits that are inappropriate or that are not appropriate in all circumstances. Unfortunately, as the Minister has made clear, the rather rigid approach to variable penalties for speeding does not allow any scope for taking into account different circumstances. That is why the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside was on to a good point with the amendment. 
The hon. Lady, like all of us, is concerned about the messages that are going out. The Government spend an enormous amount of taxpayers' money on trying to promote a clear road safety message. As politicians, we know that the message must be very straightforward for people to begin to understand it and that it must be repeated on many occasions for it to get home. 
When I was the road safety Minister, we were banging on about the different consequences of a collision at 40 mph, 30 mph or 20 mph. Ten years later, the Government are still advertising and promoting that message. It is important that we, as a legislature, do not do anything that will undermine that message. However, at the same time, we must have regard to common sense.

Andy Reed: I was wondering whether, just because 58 per cent. of people are not obeying the law, should we give up and say that breaking the law by driving faster than 30 mph is okay? The hon. Gentleman is right that we have been banging on for a long time about the differences between the injuries caused at 30 mph and at 40 mph, but is it not right that we stick at that, as has been the case with many other road safety messages, such as those on seatbelts? It takes almost a generation to change the culture. Would it not be better to keep banging away, rather than to move towards flexibility at this stage and send out the wrong message? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support that.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but I think that we should introduce more flexibility with regard to speed limits, if it is possible to do so. It is clear that driving at a given speed through an urban area will be safer when few people are around than when pedestrians are tumbling off the pavements and almost into the path of vehicles. That is common sense.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many members of the public would say the opposite? They would prefer more policemen to be engaged in duties other than traffic duties.

Christopher Chope: I do not meet those members of the public. However, I am impressed by some of the ginger groups that operate on behalf of motorists, such as the Association of British Drivers, which is behind the sensible speeds initiative. It is against all the fixed penalties and the insensitive enforcement. It wants more sensitive discretion to be exercised in enforcement, and it realises that the best way to bring that about and to bring to book the very bad drivers who are such a menace on our roads is to have more police.
The hon. Gentleman backs his party's policy of significantly reducing the number of traffic police, and I am sure that, in due course, he will get his reward from the Government for having supported them on a policy that is absurd and totally counter-productive in terms of road safety. 
We could carry on debating this matter for much longer. However, as I made a full contribution to the previous debate, I will conclude now, and wait with bated breath to hear what the Minister has to say.

Richard Younger-Ross: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate.
The Minister may be sitting very comfortably at the moment, thinking that he is positioned somewhere between Labour Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrats, and those on the Conservative Front Bench. However, being in the middle is not always right. I ask him to listen to the points that have been made, and in particular those from his Back Benchers in strong support of amendment No. 3, rather than those for Conservative amendment No. 28. 
The most pertinent point was made by the hon. Member for Stafford. There is always a lot of pressure in all our constituencies from people who want reduced speed limits in residential areas. The police resist that because, by and large, they cannot police them as they do not have the resources to put in place the mobile cameras and so forth. However, I have something to say about whether a penalty of two points is appropriate. Situations outside schools are easy to deal with, but I can think of two or three dead-end residential streets in my constituency—Third avenue in Teignmouth, for example—where there have been complaints about cars going too fast. We are trying to get the police to put a speed camera in place there to catch the young drivers who speed and to get them to slow down. We may catch them once, but  there is not a chance in hell of my being able to get a mobile speed camera there on six separate occasions and to catch a repeat offender. There is no opportunity to do that. Therefore, reducing the penalty to two points for the lower speed limits will mean that people can speed almost with impunity, because they know that they might get caught once, but that they are very unlikely to be caught two, three or four times after that. 
Retaining three points for the lower speed limits is therefore entirely appropriate. There must be a risk that persistent speeders, particularly those who speed in built-up areas, will lose their licences. At the end of the day, if they persist in speeding, they are not going to lose their licences, but another person is going to lose their life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the difference between a 30 mph impact on a child and a 40 mph impact is the difference between the child being in hospital and the child being in a grave.

David Jamieson: This has been a full and extremely well informed debate, and I wish that all debates in Standing Committees could rise to such quality. The tone was set by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who made a powerful contribution in her inimitable way—quiet, but astonishingly persuasive and strong.
My hon. Friend has had a long-standing interest in such matters, both personally and through the Transport Committee. The proposals in the Bill were the subject of an inquiry by that Committee and we were grateful to it for the views expressed. It is unusual, although not unique, for such a Bill to go before a Select Committee, and I am pleased that that was possible. 
My hon. Friend painted a picture that we in the Department have been considering as well. The rate of death increases exponentially as the speed increases; so, at 20 mph there is a very high rate of survival of crashes, but beyond 40 mph, and certainly at 50 mph, pedestrians are unlikely to survive. She referred to the campaign of posters and to the television advert that the Department put out recently, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). That advert is good because it does not show the blood-and-guts side, but a girl having an 80 per cent. chance of survival after being hit at 30 mph, with the caption ''It's 30 for a reason''. If a child is hit at a higher speed, the chances are that she will not appear to mend as she does in our advert. 
My hon. Friend also said that she was not opposed to the principle of graduated penalties. In response to the discussion document that we put out, that view was almost universally expressed by all who made the case. She made a persuasive case, as did others, and I assure her that her views will be listened to in the next stage when we implement the legislation. 
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for his support. Just for correction, he talked about enforcement on the motorway of a 76 mph speed limit. In theory that is possible, but the Association of Chief Police Officers  guidelines refer to 10 per cent. plus two, and my arithmetic tells me that that makes 79 mph. In reality, however, I think that the enforced limit is somewhat higher than that, although that would depend on the circumstances and the police force concerned. However, they all use good sense in such matters. 
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the example of 30 mph to 35 mph attracting three points. Again, the limit is not enforced at those speeds but at higher speeds. I thought that I would mention that in case someone read our proceedings and thought the limits were implemented in the way that he described. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a helpful speech. His chairmanship of PACTS is well known. PACTS also had a session on the Bill and interrogated me and my officials, which, again, we found very useful. He made a point that should underlie our thinking in this debate: in comparison with the rest of the world—certainly with the rest of Europe—we have one of the best records on road safety, and I am proud of that. Over the years, what successive Governments have done has led to a relatively good record on our roads. Notice that I say ''relatively''. Whether that record is acceptable is another matter. We would not be discussing the Road Safety Bill if we thought that our record was satisfactory. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that the majority—or a large number, at least—of people injured on urban roads are children. I am very pleased that during the past two or three years, particularly among children, there has been a dramatic fall in deaths and, in particular, serious injuries on our roads. We set ourselves the target of a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured on the roads over 10 years; in just over three and a half years, we have achieved a 42 per cent. reduction, and that is very pleasing. A bit more arithmetic would enable us to imagine how many children are now, as a result of that, alive and well rather than injured, and we could picture how successful we have been. 
The counterpart, however, is that children are still dieing, and that is unacceptable. As many children as go to a medium-sized primary school are killed on our roads each year. When we think about the issue in those terms, we should realise that, although we are improving our record, we have to do much better. 
Not only are we doing well in this country—we take such things very seriously—but I am delighted that the European Union and other countries in Europe now look to us as an example of good practice. That tendency is spreading throughout the world; I have been to conferences in other parts of the world and been approached by Governments who want us to help them get a record that compares to ours. I am proud of that. Having said all that, there are no grounds for complacency. Just as figures can go down, they can go up. If we let off our efforts, there would be a good chance that the figures would start going up again. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. I shall go a bit further. He said:
 ''After the Bill is enacted, we will be obliged to consult by statute.''— 
I have underlined that point today. He added: 
 ''People must be able to see fairness and proportion in all laws, but I do not believe that the one-point difference that we are discussing, will mean that lots of people say, 'Well, it is all right to break a 30 mph speed limit.' ''—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 216.] 
That is true. People do not suddenly say, ''It is one point down; now I can go as fast as I like as often as I like.'' The Secretary of State's statement was correct, and motoring organisations have made the same point. Notwithstanding that, I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Our decisions in the future have to be informed by parliamentary debates and by the views of those outside. That will inform the next part of the process. 
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was going to go into the confessional as he made his comments.

Mark Fisher: I did.

David Jamieson: He did, indeed. If we asked people in this Room to put their hands up, others might join him. However, I shall not invite them to, lest it create embarrassment.
The hon. Member for Christchurch made the good point that the issue is not just about speed, but appropriate speed. Speed limits are seen as a target by a minority of people; they are not. They show the maximum permissible speed on a road. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that that is not necessarily the appropriate speed in all circumstances. We can think of examples in the morning when children are going to school along a busy high street. It could be raining, too, as it was a couple of mornings ago. It is inappropriate to be driving at 30 mph in such circumstances. During the week I reside in London, and to travel at more than 10 or 15 mph at quarter to 9 in the morning down the road near where I live would be grossly irresponsible. Parents are arriving in cars and children are milling about the narrow road. 
Amusement was expressed in certain parts of the press that in Plymouth, in part of which is my constituency, there was an advisory speed limit of 10 mph in the home zone. It went out in the press—again, in the way in which we debate matters in this country—that the Government will now impose a restriction of 10 mph. There was a picture of someone with a red flag walking in front of a car on the motorway. It would be outrageous to drive at more than 10 mph in the home zone. Although the speed limit is not compulsory, the local people have enforced the restriction. They approached people who were driving too fast and said, ''Hey, just a minute, you live here as well as I do. You are not going at that speed through our community. Our children are on the streets and people want to use the road as a walking space as well as a driving space.'' Such an approach has worked well. There has been much success. 
I shall double check, but it is my view and that of my officials that powers exist for authorities to take up such an option. If it were not the case, perhaps we can promote that idea. The only difficulty with it is that, when we impose a variable speed limit, it must be enforced and signing must be in place. That does not come cheaply. The variable speed limit on the M25 has performed well and I should like that system in other areas, nevertheless it does not come cheaply. We must bear in mind signs, enforcement measures and other matters that go with it. 
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) referred to many points in his helpful and useful contribution. I hope that members of the Committee understand, first, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and others in the Department are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. We are determined about that. We are succeeding, but we want to ensure that we continue to succeed. Secondly, the Department's current advertising campaign stresses the importance of the 30 mph limit and that it is not a matter to be treated lightly. If the limit is 30 mph, it is 30 mph and not more than that. Publicity has been drawn to the problems and dangers of travelling faster. It is fairly obvious what the Department feels; such matters are embedded in its thinking. 
I listened carefully to the views that were expressed on Second Reading and I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed today. We should leave the clause as drafted, as it gives us enabling powers. There may be places where we can consider reducing the number of penalty points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly said, we are talking about road safety. Some yellow boxes and no-right turns are about solving the problem of congestion—to keep traffic moving and to stop people being inconsiderate to others—rather than about safety, and it may be appropriate to take that into account when considering infringements. I would like to hear some more views on the matter. 
On that basis I hope that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Louise Ellman: In the light of the Minister's assurances I feel more confident that our views have been listened to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The Minister made it clear that the clause applies not only to speeding offences. What other offences will it apply to and what will be the time scale for introducing proposals in relation to the other offences?

David Jamieson: It would apply to any other offences that would attract a fixed penalty. There is a range of offences, and I gave some examples in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. When the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will have to examine carefully which offences would be appropriate for proposals either for the slight reduction that I mentioned earlier, or, more importantly, whether to introduce a greater penalty for those who flagrantly exceed the speed limit and excessively commit offences and break the law. We will have to consider whether we can impose greater penalties and larger fines.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Jamieson: The clause introduces schedule 1, which will allow the vehicle examiners from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—VOSA—an agency of the Department for Transport, to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of those offences for which they have enforcement powers. The schedule will also empower VOSA to deal with other matters connected to the operation of the fixed-penalty system on behalf of the Secretary of State. The right of the recipient of a fixed penalty notice to request a court hearing would not be affected.
In addition, the amendments empower the Secretary of State to set up and administer a new system, similar to the one administered by the fixed-penalty clerks under part 3, to collect payment for fixed penalties and endorse driving licences, where the penalty includes endorsement. These new powers will be exercised through VOSA. 
Sections 57 and 76 of the 1988 Act are amended to empower the Secretary of State to inspect and endorse the licences, without the involvement of the court—unless the points threshold for disqualification has been reached—of those drivers who have been issued with a fixed penalty notice for an endorsable offence. The driver to whom the fixed penalty is issued will be required to surrender their licence to the administration office of VOSA for endorsement action within a specified time. 
Section 75 of the 1988 Act is amended to allow the VOSA examiners to issue conditional offers for those offences that are detected remotely, in line with existing police practice. It is also amended to allow for the different fixed penalty system in Scotland, whereby fixed penalty notices are substituted by conditional offers.

David Wilshire: For the sake of clarity, I wonder whether the Minister was straying into discussing clause 4 and schedule 1 at the same time. I do not want to say anything about schedule 1 at the moment, but I hope that we will not be precluded from having a separate debate on it.

Peter Pike: I will put the second Question separately, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak on it. We are speaking to clause 4.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike. Although I have been in the House of Commons for a long time—some would say too long—I am still, as a layman, mystified by the process of legislation. I imagine Bills as determining something, as most clauses do. Clause 4 simply says
 ''Schedule 1 contains provision about the giving of fixed penalty notices''. 
How riveting that is. What on earth do we need the clause for? It does not add anything to legislation or take anything away from it. It is self-evident that schedule 1 exists—I can find it. Do we really need signposts littered about legislation that say, ''If you look carefully, you will find schedule 1 further on''? In that case, why do we not have clauses that say, ''If you keep reading, you'll find clause 6 and schedule 9''?. It seems to me unnecessary. 
The Minister is too nice and gentle a man to lecture me about being otiose, but his colleague in the Department is well used to using such abrasive language about anything that I suggest. Perhaps on  this occasion, if the Minister spoke to the Minister of State, he would find him also saying that the clause is unnecessary.

David Jamieson: As I understand it, the point is that, because the schedule refers to this part of the Bill, we need the clause to refer to the schedule and demonstrate that it is there. The hon. Gentleman felt that that was otiose. I am not sure whether it is and I think that other Bills do exactly the same thing, and have done so for a long time. A clause often refers to a schedule. That is not a recent thing. It is true that, in other clauses, more issues are often referred to as well. However, I do not think that we should be surprised by the clause. I am sure that we can draw the clause to the attention of those who wrote the Bill and, if there is any way in which drafting can be improved, I would be the first to want to learn from that.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners etc.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I ask the Minister to set out what the policy of the Department will be on the exercise of discretion as to whether to impose penalties under the powers set out in the schedule. There is much concern that, as soon as we get into the fixed-penalty regime, discretion will go out of the window. As a result, there would be much rough justice. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it is not the intention of the Department that every breach of any regulation that is governed by the schedule will automatically result in the imposition of a fixed penalty and that common sense and discretion will be applied in generous measure.
I also ask him about the mechanics of the handling of licences that must be endorsed. It is one thing to say, ''You can take your licence to a police station for endorsement'', because the person will probably have some control about when they get their licence back. In the schedule, we are talking—largely—about a group of professional drivers. If they have to send their licence to a department for endorsement, it may be difficult for them to continue to operate as drivers without having a licence available to them. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some assurances about the time scales in which those licences will be returned. The circumstances would be different if a penalty involved disqualification, but in the routine case of an endorsement somebody might be without their licence for a fairly long time, which could be a serious problem for a professional driver.

David Wilshire: I do not want to get into the minutiae of the provisions. I listened carefully to what the Minister said the schedule does, but what he did not say—I can guess the answer, but it might be helpful to have it on the record—is why he thinks making the change is a good idea. I am not against such a change in principle, but I always become anxious when more people are put in a position in which they can prosecute or penalise motorists, because enough people can do that already.
We had such discussions during a previous Bill about a new set of people on motorways and the powers that they would have, including being able to issue tickets. Similar discussions have also taken place with regard to community support officers and the police. I am worried that far too often we say that another group of people as well as the police should be able to enforce the law, take action against criminals and issue notices. Before I accept that the change is a good idea, I want the Minister to tell us why he wants to add another group of people and not leave it to the tried and tested ways of doing things. I do not necessarily buy into the fact that it is just matter of convenience, so I will listen with interest.

David Jamieson: The points raised are good ones. We have to remember that VOSA almost exclusively enforces against heavy goods vehicles rather than general members of the public, and it has been using its discretion over the years in its activities.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked why the change was a good idea. Over the 20-odd years since vehicle inspectors were brought in, a degree of professionalism among those carrying out this work has developed. I have been out with them on motorways and seen some of the work that they do. They are extremely capable and professional people who work within clearly set out codes of conduct. Their presence is well known in the HGV community, and their powers and responsibilities are well understood. The vast majority of operators and drivers who operate safely and carefully are pleased that VOSA inspectors are taking action against the minority who cut corners—often competing more cheaply because of it—and put other people's lives at risk. People plough along motorways very close to each other, and most are pleased that action is being taken against those who drive without proper brakes or with other unsuitable mechanical features on their vehicle. 
VOSA operators work under a code of practice that sets out powers relating to stopping vehicles. They currently operate those powers but the police have to impose penalties. This is another example of a civilian force of good quality, professional people that can take some of the load off the police so that they can concentrate on other types of criminality. Some tasks, such as inspecting vehicles and testing brakes, can be done quite properly by a highly skilled, competent civilian force, which, indeed, it is. 
The measure will take some of the load from the police, and this force, which is currently doing a good job, will be further improved and enhanced.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, one of the suspicions when an agency has the power to levy penalties is that it will be motivated to do so in order to fund its own activities—what is otherwise known as a self-financing regulatory authority. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking that VOSA's operations will not be dependent on funding that it obtains from penalties that it imposes. That might give it an incentive to impose more penalties than is fair or just.

David Jamieson: There will not be any such incentive, just as there is not for the police, because the fines—except those specified in law, such as the ones that we have discussed in relation to speed cameras—go straight to the Consolidated Fund, not into the VOSA's pockets. There would be no incentive, other than the one it gets from doing its job: ensuring that vehicles on the road are safe.

David Wilshire: I wanted to intervene on the Minister, but as I am on my feet I shall make a contribution, and see if I can goad him into responding. His response to my first comments has reassured me. I found the information helpful and I can see a reason for the provision, so I have no difficulty with that.
However there is something that the Minister did not say. I found myself thinking that those people can carry out that function, and it does make sense, but to what extent is there the risk of a separate ethos, approach and use of discretion? People will be issuing what amount to penalty points that have exactly the same effect as penalty points for speeding, which tot up in just the same way. 
This is a different group of people who are not necessarily using the same criteria and discretion as others doing that job. What supervision will there be of the people doing it? What standards will be set? I know that there is guidance, but to what extent will someone who is not one of those inspectors be able to ensure that it is being followed? To what extent will someone be able to compare their practice with that elsewhere, and, if necessary, will they have the authority to pull them back into line with other people issuing fixed penalty notices?

David Jamieson: It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the VOSA inspectors have quite awesome powers at the moment, which go beyond issuing a fixed penalty. They have the power to stop a vehicle: they have liveried vehicles, and they can oblige a vehicle to pull over. They usually pull in to a weighbridge or a place where they can conduct safety inspections on the vehicles. If the examiner on the site is not satisfied that a particular vehicle is safe to be on the road, they can prohibit that vehicle from going on the road. That could be a far greater penalty to the driver and the operator than the fixed penalty.
I am glad to say that they have awesome powers. I am pleased that they have those because of the vehicles that they are stopping. When I joined them for an afternoon, one of the vehicles that was pulled in was a furniture lorry that had been badly loaded, so all the weight was at the front, and its rear brakes were not functioning at all. That vehicle was pulled in doing 50 mph on the M4. I was very pleased that the inspectors had those powers. At the moment, they would be used through the police, but the professional force that we have will do a good job and work within the code of practice. Of course, even stopping a vehicle and prohibiting it from being on the road is challengeable in the courts, if an operator feels that someone has operated beyond their powers.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said that there would not be any self-financing through the penalties imposed, but one of his officials said yesterday at the meeting that there was a business case—I think that he said that it was before the Treasury at the moment—that would achieve just that: a system whereby the proceeds of the penalties imposed would be used to fund an expansion of VOSA activity. Can the Minister comment further on that?

David Jamieson: Yes: if it brings any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the fixed penalties would not be hypothecated other than to cover the cost of administering the fixed penalty regime. So, there would not be any gain to VOSA in bringing vehicles in—just as the camera partnerships do not make any money out of that system; they are not languishing with loads of money. Evidence of the cost of running the regime must be provided. That is the only money that will be returned from the Treasury.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 5 - Goods vehicles operator licensing

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take clause 6 stand part.

David Jamieson: Clause 5 amends the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 so that fixed penalty notices given to drivers, operators or their agents, and transport managers of heavy goods vehicles, are made notifiable to the traffic commissioners and are considered in the same way as convictions under the terms of the operator licensing rules.
The objective of the clause is for the traffic commissioners to continue to be able to take into account offences that would have been notifiable on conviction had they been dealt with by the courts. The commissioners will take those offences into account when considering the fitness of a person to hold a commercial vehicle operator's licence. Currently, operators must notify the traffic commissioners of any convictions, but the clause will ensure that they would not escape the requirement to notify the traffic commissioners of an offence by accepting a fixed penalty notice. 
Clause 6 merely replicates the provisions of clause 5 for passenger-carrying vehicles by amending the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
Adjourned accordingly at quarter past Five o'clock till Tuesday 25 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.